Appeal No. 2000-0526
Application No. 08/818,958
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention. RCA
Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444,
221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In other words, there
must be no difference between the claimed invention and the
reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill
in the field of the invention. Scripps Clinic & Research
Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576, 18 USPQ2d 1001,
1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). It is not necessary that the reference
teach what the subject application teaches, but only that the
claim read on something disclosed in the reference, i.e., that
all of the limitations in the claim be found in or fully met
by the reference. Kalman v. Kimberly Clark Corp., 713 F.2d
760, 772, 218 USPQ 781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
465 U.S. 1026 (1984). Under principles of inherency, when a
reference is silent about an asserted inherent characteristic,
it must be clear that the missing descriptive matter is
necessarily present in the thing described in the reference,
and that it would be so recognized by persons of ordinary
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007